From: Kiryl Shutsemau <kirill@shutemov.name>
To: Harry Yoo <harry@kernel.org>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@kernel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@kernel.org>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Brendan Jackman <brendan.jackman@linux.dev>,
Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>, Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>,
Usama Arif <usama.arif@linux.dev>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
stable@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: make defrag_mode retries follow the promoted order
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2026 14:32:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ar0NRMxps8UErXaQ@thinkstation> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <arv8J7ysrdazJmfY@thinkstation>
On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 07:39:41PM +0100, Harry Yoo wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 06:45:51PM +0100, Kiryl Shutsemau wrote:
> > From: "Kiryl Shutsemau (Meta)" <kas@kernel.org>
> >
> > Since commit 7e8756d7ad22 ("mm: page_alloc: fix non-movable reclaim
> > storm in defrag_mode"), direct reclaim and compaction for non-movable
> > requests under defrag_mode run at pageblock_order, to produce the whole
> > blocks that ALLOC_NOFRAGMENT needs.
>
> > The retry decisions that follow still use the request order.
>
> Indeed, good catch!
>
> > An order-0 request can therefore retry
> > indefinitely without ever reaching the ALLOC_NOFRAGMENT fallback:
> >
> > - Reclaim at pageblock_order gives up after one pass as soon as a zone
> > looks compaction_ready(), and do_try_to_free_pages() then returns 1
> > even though nothing was reclaimed. It returns before the retry that
> > would reclaim memory.low-protected cgroups, so when most memory is
> > protected, the pass that did run finds next to nothing.
> >
> > - Compaction at pageblock_order fails or is deferred.
> >
> > - should_reclaim_retry() takes the reported progress as progress for
> > the order-0 request and resets no_progress_loops. The request
> > retries.
>
> Makes sense to me.
>
> > Order 1-3 requests loop the same way, and should_compact_retry() also
> > checks their pageblock_order compaction result against the request
> > order.
> >
> > On a production host (64G, defrag_mode, memory.low covering most of the
> > workload), 95% of direct reclaim runs were order-9 runs that returned 1
> > with nothing reclaimed, at up to 60k runs per second. Across ~200M
> > should_reclaim_retry() calls in a day, no_progress_loops never left 0.
> > The spinning allocations were SLUB slab refills for inode and dentry
> > caches. The time spent registers as memory pressure, and pressure-based
> > OOM killing takes down both workloads and system services.
> >
> > Treat promoted requests like costly orders:
> >
> > - Reclaim progress does not reset no_progress_loops for them.
> >
> > - should_compact_retry() checks the compaction result at the promoted
> > order. It does not retry COMPACT_SKIPPED, since the request can fall
> > back, and it does not escalate compaction to COMPACT_PRIO_SYNC_FULL.
> >
> > When the fallback is taken, reset the retry counters, so that the
> > fallback attempt gets a full retry budget before the OOM killer is
> > considered.
> >
> > In a VM reproducer (32G, defrag_mode, inode churn under memory.low):
> >
> > before after
> > should_reclaim_retry() calls 63M 293k
> > peak memory pressure (PSI some avg10) 99% 12%
> >
> > File creation runs 5.7x faster.
> >
> > Fixes: 7e8756d7ad22 ("mm: page_alloc: fix non-movable reclaim storm in defrag_mode")
> > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
> > Assisted-by: LLM
> > Signed-off-by: Kiryl Shutsemau (Meta) <kas@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > mm/page_alloc.c | 85 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> > 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > index 12fac9084c48..608487672d93 100644
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -4127,6 +4127,31 @@ __alloc_pages_may_oom(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> > return page;
> > }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * If fallbacks are not permitted (defrag_mode), we either need to
> > + * reclaim space in a block of matching type, or clear out an entire
> > + * block to allow __rmqueue_claim() to convert.
> > + *
> > + * Reclaim by itself is primarily freeing space in movable blocks,
> > + * since that's where the LRU pages live. So this works for movable
> > + * requests, but not for others.
> > + *
> > + * For those, promote the order of reclaim and compaction to help make
> > + * blocks, instead of spinning in reclaim alone unproductively. Retry
> > + * decisions based on the outcome of that work - reclaim progress and
> > + * compaction results - must account for the promotion as well, see
> > + * should_reclaim_retry() and should_compact_retry().
> > + */
> > +static inline unsigned int nofrag_promote_order(unsigned int order,
> > + unsigned int alloc_flags,
> > + const struct alloc_context *ac)
> > +{
> > + if ((alloc_flags & ALLOC_NOFRAGMENT) && ac->migratetype != MIGRATE_MOVABLE)
> > + return max(order, pageblock_order);
> > +
> > + return order;
> > +}
>
> I think we should start distinguishing order and compact/reclaim_order
> in __alloc_pages_slowpath(). Silently overriding it makes it harder to
> follow and easy to make a mistake.
Agreed, four callers recomputing the same thing is asking for a
mismatch.
I would rather not grow this patch, it has to go to stable.
I will look into a cleanup on top: __alloc_pages_slowpath() computes the
promoted order once per iteration and passes it to direct
reclaim/compaction and the two retry helpers next to the request order,
so the helpers stop knowing about defrag_mode.
> > @@ -4299,7 +4316,7 @@ should_compact_retry(gfp_t gfp_mask, struct alloc_context *ac, int order,
> > /*
> > * Compaction failed. Retry with increasing priority.
> > */
> > - min_priority = (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) ?
> > + min_priority = (compact_order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) ?
> > MIN_COMPACT_COSTLY_PRIORITY : MIN_COMPACT_PRIORITY;
>
> This would change how hard we try to compact with defrag_mode in direct
> compaction as it won't try compaction with MIN_COMPACT_PRIORITY anymore.
>
> It doesn't make much sense to change that as part of this fix?
It is a choice between compacting harder and falling back, which
fragments a block.
It is a judgement call on what defrag_mode means.
It would also mean that order-0 allocation request promoted to pageblock
can trigger SYNC_FULL compaction. I cannot say I understand the
implications. Will give it a try with the reproducer.
Johannes, Vlastimil, any comments here?
--
Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-30 13:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-29 17:45 [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: make defrag_mode retries follow the promoted order Kiryl Shutsemau
2026-09-29 18:39 ` Harry Yoo
2026-09-30 13:32 ` Kiryl Shutsemau [this message]
2026-09-30 14:06 ` Johannes Weiner
2026-10-02 9:59 ` Kiryl Shutsemau
2026-10-06 8:10 ` Johannes Weiner
2026-10-06 9:13 ` Kiryl Shutsemau
2026-09-29 19:58 ` Andrew Morton
2026-09-30 12:35 ` Kiryl Shutsemau
2026-09-30 20:02 ` Andrew Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ar0NRMxps8UErXaQ@thinkstation \
--to=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=brendan.jackman@linux.dev \
--cc=david@kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=harry@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=usama.arif@linux.dev \
--cc=vbabka@kernel.org \
--cc=ziy@nvidia.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.